Motorist Comprehension of the Slow-Moving Vehicle Emblem in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the existence of the slow-moving vehicle (SMV) emblem for almost 50 years, there continues to be a large number of preventable accidents between SMVs and other motorists. In this study, the current SMV emblem was tested against other common road signs as well as alternative slow-moving vehicle emblems to determine motorist comprehension of the signs. An open-ended test method was used to determine the level of comprehension by Manitoba motorists. Written answers from 50 participants were classified as either "correct" or "incorrect" by the authors based on the meaning of the traffic signs provided in a driver's handbook. Only 3 of the 16 Manitoba traffic signs attained the 85% level of comprehension required by ANSI standards. Only 22% of participants correctly identified the current SMV emblem. Two alternatives to the SMV emblem found in the literature, both iconic in nature, were understood to mean "slow-moving vehicle" by only 2% and 8% of participants, respectively. Two alternatives to the SMV developed for this project were evaluated with levels of comprehension of 68% and 84%: however, these levels of comprehension were likely biased by the presence of text. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the current symbolic SMV emblem should be replaced by an alternative emblem that is iconic in nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".